Replies to post #112040 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Clearly he didn't want to talk about t-enox. They didn't talk about it at all until finally an audience member asked, and it was the first question from the audience if I recall. As soon as Marth was finished, the GS analyst took over and redirected the line of questioning.

All this is a consequence of NVS/MNTA’s lawsuit, IMO. (Posters on this board who ridiculed the lawsuit when it was filed might now want to reconsider :- ))

[jb_118]

re: Bill marth remarks:

Here's my transcription of it

Q: There seems to have been delays relative to the expectations in the past for the approval of m-enoxaparin. Can you maybe give us a sense of what the rate limiting step seems to be in the process?

A: What I can tell you is what I’ve told everyone else [who else has he told the following to?] and we continue to dialog with the agency at the management level, in fact David and I had a recent conversation with management there. We have been told we will get an answer by the end of January. And so we are, um, we are pretty optimistic that they will give us an answer. Now, what will that answer be? Will the answer be “gee I need a little bit more, um, you know a little bit more information on the immuniginicity.” That could be that. Could be more complicated answer, or it could be our approval. I just don’t know what it is going to be, but we know that the product has-is- being reviewed by OBP and we have been promised an answer and I think that that is important.

My questions are: Why announce you expect a date by the end of january, and why start managing expectations down now? It could be that in response to the MNTA lawsuit that GC went through all his comments, and realized he wasn't conservative enough regardless of his expectations and they trained him how to understate his expectations. Or his expectations could have changed. Either way, his tone definitely changed.